Having outlined what I have chosen to call a “common sense” approach to this ubiquitous concept, let me be clear that I am not denigrating other possible approaches. I have simply chosen to outline a way forward avoiding technical, ambiguous, vague, cryptic, or just “fuzzy” terms and staying with the familiar, “common” terms we tend to associate with our “selves.” The one possible exception is my inclusion of “soul.” Although it is a common and often-used term, it does not have a common, single, agreed-to meaning. We will confront that issue when the time comes.
Know your mind.
And so we move to the first topic—element, component—take your pick! This, like several of the topics, will be addressed in two parts:
- The first is to explore somewhat briefly—a challenge for me, as my readers know—the nature of the mind and/or brain from the viewpoint of philosophy (of course!), psychology, and cognitive science.
- The second approach will be from the viewpoint of personal experience rather than “theory” and, thus, focused primarily on the only mental activity—the only knowledge and beliefs—to which I can truly attest, and that is my own.
So let’s begin our exploration of the nature of the mind and/or brain. The mind is a pretty special place. But is it really distinct from the brain? If so, what is it? If not, what do we mean by it? Before there was cognitive science, neurobiology, even biology or psychology, humanists had wrestled with these questions and—interestingly, as we shall see—came up with basically the same conclusions as these later disciplines.
Dr. Linda Elderand and Dr. Richard Paul—in an insightful article, “The Miniature Guide to How the Mind Works, How it Learns, How it Mislearns,”—point out that it’s pretty much scientific orthodoxy now that humans are not by nature rational or ethical—that our brains are wired into our own pleasure and pain, not that of other people. And yet we clearly do have the capacity, if not always the inclination or the will, to become reasonable and ethical, to become fair-minded thinkers.
It seemed to me that to come to terms with how that happens, it would be helpful to become familiar with the various theories—old and new, philosophical and scientific—about how the mind works, and, hopefully, to find there some satisfying answers to how we develop the necessary skills and insights to move past the egocentrism that is the brain’s normative function and—to paraphrase Elderand and Paul—develop the mind’s capacity to free itself from this neurobiological “trap.”
While there will be some distinctions drawn, the primary positions—whether in philosophy, psychology, or neuroscience—are fairly clear and are generally identified as “monism” and “dualism.” So let’s look at each of these theories.
Monism comes from the Greek word monos, meaning “single” or “one,” and basically takes the position that everything comes down to “one something.” Saul McLeod (See Sources Cited/Consulted) defines the two basic types of monism:
Materialism takes the position that nothing exists apart from the material world. Therefore, consciousness (the mind) is simply the function of the brain and human beings are just complicated physiological organisms. Physical matter is all there is.
Phenomenalism, also sometimes called Subjective Idealism—identified with the Irish Bishop and Philosopher, George Berkeley—posits that only mental objects, i.e. the mind, exist. So physical objects do not exist as “things in themselves” but only as bundles of sense-data, and we cannot experience anything beyond the phenomena of our perceptions. The mental is all there is.
Linda B. Glaser (See Sources Consulted/Cited) asserts that most philosophers—I haven’t done a headcount and can’t confirm—find physicalism, a form of materialistic monism, the most compelling theory. It claims that mental phenomena have a physiological or a neurophysiological basis—i.e. “everything is accounted for by the kinds of things physicists talk about.” Two suggested schools of thought are functionalists, who would say that mind is (another word for) what the brain does, and identity theorists, who take a clear “reductionist” position and argue that the mind is the brain, and that’s all there is to it!
The difference between these two schools of thought seems (to me) to be more semantic than substantive. But in either case, as Saul McLeod points out, simply reducing everything to the “physical” can’t mean just to tangible things—gravity, for example, is a physical force, but it can’t be “touched.” This would seem to open the door to dualism. Furthermore, Linda Glaser reminds us that biologists and behaviorists cannot seem to account for hypnosis, since the body should not react to unconscious suggestions. This also supports the idea of dualism. That said –and the “whistle having been blown” on my bias—let me move on to Dualism.
Dualism is the view that the mind and body both exist as separate, but interactive entities—the mind controls the body, but the body can influence the mind. (Some dualists say that the mind would function whether or not it had a body, although that would border, it seems to me, on a monistic phenomenalism.) As Linda Glaser put it, the mind is not just an “interesting and complicated machine that can be explained by physics and biology”—something non-physical is needed to explain human consciousness
Cognitive psychologists, and others, have tried for some time to make sense out of this. The key finding, upon which most agree, has been that our brains have two major types of processes: those that operate automatically: usually called System 1, and those that “expend effort,” System 2.
Will Meek (See Sources Cited/Consulted) has posed what he terms the “Three Frames of Mind”—the Engaged and the Automatic, both included in System 1, and the Analytic way of looking at things, which is how he defines System 2. So this is the way that plays out:
· He describes The Engaged Mind as immersed in what we are doing in the present moment—in other words, just connected to whatever is going on.
The Automatic Mind is his description of the way our brain is constantly conducting an enormous range of tasks: changes in the environment, pains, decisions, feelings, etc. Because this mind function is “automatic,” it also does not discriminate and, thus, while essential, is also full of misinformation, distortions, and biases.
· The crucial ability to step back, observe, manipulate information, and solve problems is the province of The Analytical Mind, the domain of System 2. Meek proposes six broad categories covering different ways it can work—Observe, Reflect, Solve (find solutions), Plan, Focus, and Imagine. As beneficial as this capacity is, it is possible, he warns, either to over-analyze an issue or problem, or to under-think it. It is also possible for the Analytical Mind to leave us from time to time in “cognitive dissonance”—i.e. in confusion or indecision.
An analogy that one finds commonly used by both cognitive psychologists and scientists, usually by dualists, is that of a computer “in your head”—your brain is the hardware, the physical box, and your mind is the software, the operating system. Caroline Ferguson (See Sources Cited/Consulted), one of those who uses this analogy, confesses that we don’t understand everything about how the mind works but suggests that it has two “layers” of consciousness: the conscious mind, which makes up less than 10% of the mind, with the other 90% being the unconscious mind. These two layers of the “software” bear an uncanny (but, perhaps, not surprising) resemblance to Meek’s explanation of the functions commonly accepted as “System 1” and “System 2.”
· Ferguson’s “conscious mind” reflects Meek’s System 2 “analytical mind.”
For example:the analytical mind
manipulates information, finds solutions, solves problems;
the conscious mind
finds patterns/comparisons, responds to situations, makes decisions;
· In Meek’s breakdown of System 1,
the Automatic Mind
conducts a vast range of tasks, has feelings, can’t discriminate;
Ferguson’s Unconscious Mind
is hugely powerful, has emotions, can’t distinguish right from wrong;
and the list of comparisons goes on.
Brian Tracy (See Sources Cited/Consulted) rather interestingly suggests that the conscious mind (Meek’s Engaged/Analytical Mind) has no memory and can process only one thought at a time. He says, however, that it does have four functions that meld rather nicely with both Ferguson’s and Meek’s take on System 2’s tasks: it identifies, compares, and analyzes information to make decisions possible.
Enough said for the monistic and dualistic approaches to the nature of the human mind, with enough examples, hopefully, to show pretty strong agreement within the two positions. While my own preference for a dualistic understanding has been obvious, it would be nice If there could someday be a common agreement about how the mind works, but given the long history of dissent on this issue, a clear detente seems unlikely.
However one chooses to explain it, what is indisputable is that we can rationally analyze our cognitive processes and one of our basic needs is to make sense of our experiences. Any viable approach must take into account the self as observer and knower of one’s own actions and history, and the feelings and meanings that are attached to them. As all of my “blather” up to now—based on some research in the worlds of philosophy, psychology, and cognitive science—clearly shows, we can understand how we think and see behind what we think, including our principles and our beliefs. This is how we’re moved through life, how we make life decisions.
With more said about the nature and workings of the mind than I intended or expected, I don’t want to wear you out or put you to sleep, so in a second post, on “the mind,” which will follow soon, I’ll turn to some of my personal experiences of trying to know my own mind—
- some examples of what ideas, experiences, beliefs have occupied it,
- and some of the later processes of learning about how it works.
2 Responses
The monistic notion doesn’t hold up to the simplest logical test. If the mind and the brain are the same thing, that is the organ itself is the mind, then the mind would continue to function after death, but we define death as the absence of any electrical activity in the brain. And, in autopsy, we remove the brain and slice it up. If the brain and the mind are one (monistic), are we destroying the eternal mind during autopsy? Perhaps I am biased as you describe yourself, but I dismiss the monistic view as illogical rubbish.
On the System 1 and System 2 business, have you looked at Kahneman and Tversky’s work? You might find it interesting. Kahneman won a Nobel Prize for it. His book “Thinking Big and Small” is an excellent read. Just a suggestion. If you are like me on this one point (and I suspect you are), it will be one more to add to the mountain you nor I will ever get to finish. 😉
Now, David, my friend, you need to stop being so kind and gentle in expressing your judgment—e.g. using such polite and inoffensive language as “illogical rubbish,” and just say what you really think. LOL!! Just teasing, of course. I love what you say and how you say it—you have shown why the monistic position is, in your judgment and by your logic, to be dismissed. I really do welcome that kind of plain-spoken response, even though for what I think are explainable reasons, I take a bit more gentle, if plain, approach, as I have done in showing my own clear preference for the dualistic explanation of the mind/body issue.
I confess that I am regrettably not familiar with the book and authors you reference but you can be sure that I will be looking up them and the book. Whatever more I can learn about this issue—which is clearly a lot—will be more than welcome snd a Nobel Prize winner sounds like a darn good place to start. Thanks, again, for your prompt and careful reading of my blog and for your, as always, insightful response!